1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1WdmV4-0006HT-O3
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 25 Apr 2014 20:13:34 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.46 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.46; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f46.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WdmV2-0004kj-Mr
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 25 Apr 2014 20:13:34 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f46.google.com with SMTP id hr17so3412950lab.19
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 25 Apr 2014 13:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.3.72 with SMTP id a8mr3550825laa.33.1398456806038; Fri,
25 Apr 2014 13:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 13:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OX5_POg9kFoz-LsGhuLRA6qFPcNXoECLhewe+o-+Pw2gA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAE-z3OXe4fG2S274qcgpGsXA=ZhhJQneEDqLYvNWZT8U9y_NLA@mail.gmail.com>
<201404251917.49826.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAE-z3OX5_POg9kFoz-LsGhuLRA6qFPcNXoECLhewe+o-+Pw2gA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 13:13:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRjtC+v7G6BA2UGtPWWUHQyuViJk24AO5ge6-hKW+H+Ww@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1WdmV2-0004kj-Mr
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP - Selector Script
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 20:13:34 -0000
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This looks reasonable from a brief skim over, but does not define any use
>> cases (it mentions "necessary for atomic cross chain transfers", but does
>> not
>> explain how it is useful for that - perhaps that belongs in another BIP
>> you
>> haven't written yet, though).
> One use case should be enough. The atomic cross chain proposal has been
> discussed for a while. It feels like bitcoin works on an "ask permission
> first" basis.
You're reading that response the wrong way. It isn't in any way
opposed to the specification, it's pointing out that the specification
is _unclear_ about the applications, it mentions one but doesn't
explain it and it wouldn't be apparent to all readers. Thats all.
It could be clarified by saying something like "allows spending to be
controlled by the publication of information, for example in another
transaction so that they can only be completed atomically [citation to
a revision of the contracts page]".
|
